Question For Obama: How About A Science-Based Drug Policy?

President Obama is taking your questions now, and will answer them tomorrow. In a move to make Obama more accessible and answerable to the public, the White House web site is soliciting questions from the public for Obama to answer on their new "Open For Questions" page. So, given the opportunity, what question would you ask the president? Personally, I would choose: "Will drug policy be included in your new science-based approach to government, or will you let politics continue to trump science in this arena?" Because there have been two specific news items in the past few weeks, and while they are almost completely unrelated, they both come from the "science/politics" debate on drugs. The first is the "morning after" pill, and the second is medical marijuana.

The morning after pill ("Plan B") was in the news because a federal judge just told the Food and Drug Administration to start selling it over the counter without a prescription to women under the age of 18. In a scathing opinion from the bench, the judge made it clear he believed that the decision to limit the over-the-counter status of the drug to adult women was made for political reasons, not scientific ones. Which the FDA is just not supposed to do. The FDA, under Bush, didn't even want to change the status of Plan B in the first place, they would have been much happier to leave it as a prescription-only drug. But they were forced to act, so they did what they could to continue limiting access to the drug to only the women they deemed fit to buy it without seeing a doctor first. The judge found this improper, and sent it back to the FDA drawing boards, telling them to get it right the second time around.

One would fully expect the FDA, under Obama, to reverse this decision and give all women access to the drug without a prescription. Politically, Obama doesn't have a whole lot to lose by doing so, and (theoretically) the FDA is supposed to be independent of political influence anyway, so Obama can even take a hands-off approach to the issue, which only further limits any political liability from reversing this decision. But instead of doing so, Obama should get out in front of the issue and declare strongly:

"This is exactly what I was talking about when I said I wanted to 'restore scientific integrity to government' and ensure that scientific data are 'never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.' I meant what I said, and we will listen to scientific opinion on this issue, and decide accordingly. The only questions worth asking about Plan B are 'Is it safe?' and 'Is it effective?' and those are the only things which will influence our decision."

The second issue is more politically charged, but that should not be a reason for Obama to shy away from it. The Attorney General made news recently by saying he is not going to go after medical marijuana providers in states that have made medical marijuana legal. While federal law does trump state law, the Obama administration has decided that the specter of Drug Enforcement Agency raids on sick people when we have a crisis on our Mexican border shows the wrong priorities.

There are actually quite a few questions up on the White House's Open For Questions site right now dealing with this issue, so it will be interesting to see if Obama answers any of them. Many ask outright: why not legalize marijuana, tax it, and regulate it? But putting aside the legalization question, the subject of medical marijuana falls into the same "science/politics" arena as Plan B. Here is one of the more popular questions from the site on the subject, from "Phill" in Georgetown, Massachusetts:

President Obama, Do you plan on letting Science end the failed "War" on Marijuana for personal and medical use thus taking the strain of our prisons and police forces so that we no longer have to arrest over 800,000 non violent drug offenders?

Medical marijuana has been approved for use in over one-fourth of American states. Civilization, as we know it, has not crumbled as a result. But what most people don't realize (even the ones advocating for policy change) is that there is a very easy way to make this change. It wouldn't require an act of Congress, it wouldn't require the Attorney General to decide these things on a case-by-case basis, and it is scientifically appropriate. Doctors wouldn't have to fear retribution for writing a prescription, states (who choose to) could set up a legal way of licensing and allowing the growth and distribution to patients, and the entire issue could become a lot less politically charged.

All President Obama needs to do is to declare that marijuana will move from being a Schedule I "dangerous controlled substance" to being listed as Schedule II.

This gets a bit arcane, but bear with me here. Federal drug laws differentiate between different drugs for different reasons. The list of Schedules runs from I to V (with I being the most dangerous, and V being the least). Substances change designations over time -- like what has happened to cold and allergy medicines (which contain the precursor for methamphetamine, and were more tightly controlled as a result). But the main difference between Schedule I and Schedule II is that Schedule I drugs have no medical use, while Schedule II drugs do.

Here is a partial list of Schedule II drugs (the DEA has the full list of all schedules for those interested): cocaine, opium, amphetamine (Dexedrine), Demerol, methamphetamine, Nembutal, PCP, and secobarbitol (Seconal). You read that right -- cocaine, crystal meth, opium, and PCP are considered "medically useful" in some situations, and marijuana is not.

The actual language from the Controlled Substances Act:

(1) Schedule I.
    (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
    (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
    (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

(2) Schedule II.
    (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
    (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
    (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

The other three Schedules (III, IV, and V) all use the following for item (B): "The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

As for provision (C) of Schedule I, there are no safety issues surrounding medical marijuana that I am aware of. And as for "accepted medical use," it seems there is a de facto accepted medical use when one-fourth of the states have allowed such medical use.

Meaning, scientifically speaking, there is no justification for the continued designation of marijuana on Schedule I. The question is entirely political, to put it another way.

Which is what President Obama promised to stop doing.

So, while the Attorney General's announcement that the feds were going to ease up a bit on raiding medical marijuana providers was indeed a welcome development, it simply does not go far enough. The Attorney General has the power to change all of this, without even asking Congress' permission. The same Act states: "the Attorney General may by rule ... transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance...."

So my question for Obama would be, in full: "President Obama, since you have promised to start basing government policy on science and not on politics, will you push to allow all women over-the-counter access to Plan B as soon as possible? And seeing as how one-fourth of the states have made medical marijuana legal, how can you justify on scientific grounds the continued listing of marijuana as a Schedule I drug and not under Schedule II? Are you committed to bring your science-based philosophy into the realm of federal drug policy, or will you allow politics to dictate such decisions, as in the recent past?"

 

[Program Notes: I had a little problem getting specific links on the White House site to work reliably, so I have just left the link to their main question page. I apologize for not providing better links. Go to the site and search on "marijuana" to see some of the questions being asked. And, while digging through the DEA's web page, I found the following gem that I just couldn't squeeze into the main article:

''Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act (Oct. 30, 2000), the Administrator (of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), in consultation with the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, shall place anti-drug messages on Internet sites controlled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.''

Insert your own joke about drug users visiting a "space" site here. Ahem.]

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

Comments

[Ganja-Rebel]

noone laughed at this guy, when he brought it up:

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts
to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime
out of things that are not crimes."
Abraham Lincoln
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/e_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.
563D

"A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which
our government was founded."
Abraham Lincoln
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/e_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.410A

[worldlyhick]

Thank you Chris for this informative article. Folks need all the education they can get.

From posts here and other related articles there are some painfully hard situations out there relating to this issue. Adults who need to use the whole herb cannabis need to be able to do so without the intervention of the medical establishment. If they wish they should be able to grow it.

Why should people be denied use of a plant that has been used for thousands of years because of some very ill informed, corrupt and racist legislation that was passed years ago? It's absurd to the point of a mass hysteria or brainwashing.

[thomasay637]

I think we're missing something when we only discuss the medical uses for marijuana. First we need to stop refering to it as marijuana. It's hemp. It was always hemp, until they needed to make it sound more scarey when they were attempting to criminalize it. There are literally 100's of uses for hemp. Everything from medicine to a plastic like material that is bio-degradable. Pure, white paper can be made from hemp that requires no bleaching (dioxins). It's an amazing plant that may be beneficial for loads of things that we don't even know about because of the knee-jerk reaction people have when you mention marijuana. Google "hemp" sometime and do some real research. It'll blow your mind.

[Warren Holstein - Huffpost Blogger]

Really great article. We still have a lot of obstacles to overcome on the path to legalization.

Check out my piece on the Huffington Post, “Operation Buzzkill: Random Drug Testing for the Unemployed” at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/warren-holstein/operation-buzzkill-random_b_179960.html

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Warren -

I already read your piece when you posted it, thanks for pointing it out. While it was both interesting and informative, I have to admit my mind kind of jumped the track after I read it. My reaction was: How about we also test all those Wall Street traders, now that they're also "on welfare"?? I bet over half of them would test positive for cocaine. Or how about drug testing for members of state legislatures, for that matter?

I strongly urge everyone to check out Warren's excellent piece, though. This is the continuation of the demonization of people on welfare which began under Reagan and continues to this day. And now, particularly, it's a bigger problem because of the economic situation (more people need it now).

And thanks for the kind words!

-CW

[ConnieInCleveland]

Chris, other than demonization of people of welfare, Ronald Reagan was allowed to lie, in plain sight and no one corrected him. Ronald Reagan was able to utter these words and no one held him accountable.

"I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast" - Ronald Reagan

People with voices are afraid to speak honestly about cannabis for fear of character assassination. Lies have been used with reckless abandon in the name of war. President Bush was allowed to distort facts, leading up to war with Iraq. No one held him accountable. It’s shameful. Where was the shame?

It is time for change! Lies should not be sociably acceptable. It’s shameful. Where is their shame? It’s time for an honest discussion about cannabis hemp facts! President Obama should right the wrongs of Richard Nixon and remove cannabis hemp from the Dangerous Substance List.

[Bonobo]

The trouble with Schedule II is that A) and C) don't really fit. If you don't get hung up on the wording of B), marijuana really belongs in Schedule V, at most.

[Brinna]

Well, we all know now how Obama treated this crucial issue of drug policy reform. He laughed it off. But, my prediction: that's the best thing that could have happened, because there is now a collective outrage that will not be silenced.

By the way, you might add to your article this tidbit: The US Dept of HHS holds its own patent (#6,630,507) based on the medicinal properties of cannabis – and they are offering it for licensing. The patent states that cannabis is not only beneficial, but is a neuroprotectant and anti-inflammatory, and is useful in the PREVENTION and treatment of a wide variety of ailments including stroke, trauma, auto-immune disorders, HIV dementia, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.

This patent, based on research done at the NIH, was awarded in 2003, three full years before the FDA (a subsidiary of HHS) issued a agency statement that after consulting with its various branches it concluded that marijuana has no medical use. Clearly, they did not consult with their patent department.

Politics, not science, has been the order of the day on this issue.

That is about to change.

[Nicon]

Keep up the good work, Great piece. Most people don't realize how little it would take to change our national stance on Marijuana, and how large the benefits can be for both Marijuana users, and people that would never ever use an intoxicant.

[Coltrane1234]

What's the worst is, they know the science, they know it's pretty much harmless and yet, they still say no and wave their finger at you, No. They like to look down on you like your their so much better then you.

[Dwight5]

Just to remind you all of the lies and hypocrisy of all this denial of any medical benefits from the use of marijuana, President George Herbert Walker Bush was prescribed THC tablets while in office as President by the top doctors in our nation to treat his glaucoma of which he was cured due to the THC tablets..e­rgo Marijuana.­..

It just goes to show that what is good for the royal families, is too good for you or me or our loved ones in need..

Go check out this fact, a Bush while President was prescribed THC for his glaucoma and it cured him thank God blindness is something I would wish on no one..!

[sviolette]

You don't get "cured" of glaucoma. It can only be stopped at whatever point it was at before treatment. I have lost about 50% of my vision before it was stopped. It took three laser surgery procedures because my doctor wouldn't sign a prescription for medical pot because the feds threatened to charge doctors for writing prescriptions for marijuana. So I lost at least 25% of my vision bacause of this. I even live in Maine where medical pot is legal.

[SamKnause]

Excellent article Chris. Excellent blogs also. There are at least 4 sites today pertaining to the legalization of marijuana today on the Huffington Post. I hope the subject finally gets the attention it deserves and that is long overdue. There are so many well researched people blogging on this today. I would like for just one government official to give all of us their cons on this issue. We have supplied them with all of the pros. To have a medical discussion on this issue would be tricky. The people that I have seen or have read about that are against marijuana are Dr's. provided by the big pharmaceutical companies. We need people who do not stand to benefit because of their beliefs and just want everyone to know the truth about marijuana.

[DrFinkster]

If we were to reschedule marijuana, it would almost have to be dropped not to schedule II but to schedule III. After all, that's where Marinol (Dronabinol, i.e. synthetic THC) is currently scheduled.

[SinfullySublime]

ESTIMATED OREGON MEDICAL MARIJUANA INCOME: $32,804,72­8.00

[fredamae]

.....and in 10 years How Many Billion's For the State Coffers?

[marijuanalobby]

See how much our US Cities, States, Country and households could save on taxes if Marijuana were decriminalized:

MarijuanaLobby.org Change we can engage in...

[CrankyOne]

Well it looks like our new Atty Gen. either lied to us or he has some people in Ca. with a mind of their own. Today in SF the Feds busted a Medical Marijuana Dispensary. To make matters worse they had been there a while and were fanatics about following State Law. This isn't going to make many people happy that had supported Obama.

It's past time to stop these type of raids on Adults that are in need and following their own States, County, and City laws.

[castlerider]

This investigation has to have originated last year, during Bush's criminal tenure. So it's a carry-over, like Waco was a carry-over from Bush Sr.'s term, into the new Clinton term, February, 1993.

.How much ya wanna bet.

.

[dexxjones]

time to bring back personal freedom and end the police state. there are plenty of people who abuse butter. there are plenty of people who abuse red meat, unsafe sex, alcohol, drugs, and then there are the vast majority of us who don't and would prefer to be let the hell alone. enough with the nanny state.